Some really neat and creative suggestions here suddenly. Still happy with any name, but I do like "withThis" and "having", However, tap seems to be gaining momentum and with good reasons, despite the common complaint of "What the heck does tap mean". I agree it makes more sense after explained.
Gerald R. Wiltse [email protected] On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Marc Paquette <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for tap. Concise and makes sense once explained (even intuitive to > some). > > Have you ever tried to find usages of with in groovy with code examples > with google without eventually loosing your temper ? > > For one thing, I think tap will be easier to google for. > > Marc Paquette > > Le 8 nov. 2016 à 12:32, Suderman Keith <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Nov 8, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> wrote: > > what about an overloaded with: > > > +1 > > Or even something like: > > myObject.with { ... } // current behaviour > myObject.with(return:this) { ... } // returns this when finished. > myObejct.with(return:new Object()) { ... } // returns a new Object when > finished. > > This particular syntax would take a bit of extra parser arm waving since > the `return` keyword is being used differently in this context. > > Keith > > > myObject.with(true) { > // some code > } > > > or: > > myObject.with(returnThis:true) { > // some code > } > > > or... well I am sure there are many variants... just want to know if > something like this doesn't cut it. > > bye Jochen > > > >
